Of the “next-generation” image formats that have shown up over the past several years — WebP, AVIF, and JPEG XL — JPEG XL is the one you’ve probably heard the least about, despite arguably having the most technically ambitious goals. There’s a specific, well-documented reason for that: its biggest browser dropped support right as it was gaining traction. Here’s what JPEG XL actually is, what happened, and whether it’s worth your attention yet.
What JPEG XL Actually Is
JPEG XL was developed by the JPEG committee itself (the same standards body behind the original JPEG format), combining two earlier research projects — Google’s PIK and Cloudinary’s FUIF — into a single new standard finalized around 2021–2022. The goal wasn’t incremental: JPEG XL was designed to beat JPEG, PNG, WebP, and go head-to-head with AVIF, all in one format, while fixing a list of long-standing complaints about existing options.
Its feature set is genuinely broad:
- Lossy and lossless compression, both competitive with or better than existing formats
- Up to 32-bit float HDR support and wide color gamut, ahead of WebP’s 8-bit ceiling
- Progressive decoding — a browser can render a low-quality preview of the image before the full file finishes downloading, useful on slow connections
- Full transparency and animation support
- A genuinely unique feature: lossless JPEG recompression. JPEG XL can losslessly repackage an existing JPEG file into a JPEG XL file that’s roughly 20% smaller, and convert it back to a byte-identical JPEG later if needed. No other next-gen format can do this — WebP and AVIF both require re-encoding a JPEG from scratch, which is a lossy step even if a small one. JPEG XL’s recompression mode gives archives a way to save real storage space on existing JPEG collections without taking on any additional generational quality loss risk
On paper, that combination — better compression than JPEG, HDR support AVIF and WebP don’t fully match, and a genuinely lossless path for existing JPEG archives — made JPEG XL look like the strongest all-around candidate of the three formats.
The Real Story: Why Browser Adoption Stalled
Chrome shipped experimental JPEG XL support behind a flag starting around version 91 (2021). For a while, it looked like JPEG XL had a real shot at broad adoption. Then, in Chrome 110 (February 2023), Google removed JPEG XL support entirely — including the experimental flag. Google’s stated reasoning centered on a few points: the format hadn’t gathered enough ecosystem-wide interest, it didn’t offer a large enough incremental advantage over formats Chrome already supported (specifically AVIF), and maintaining experimental, non-default code came with an ongoing engineering cost that wasn’t clearly justified.
That decision was genuinely controversial. It drew public pushback, including petitions and vocal advocacy from parts of the photography and archival community, along with some camera manufacturers who had shown interest in JPEG XL for high-quality capture workflows. Google did not reverse the decision.
Firefox never shipped JPEG XL by default either — it was available behind a flag but disabled out of the box, and it remains that way. Safari is the outlier: Apple added JPEG XL support in Safari 17, tied to macOS Sonoma, in 2023 — so JPEG XL does have real, shipped support in the WebKit/Safari world today.
The practical consequence: with Chrome (the dominant browser by a wide margin) not supporting it and Firefox keeping it behind a flag, JPEG XL is not usable as a general-purpose web image delivery format right now without falling back to something else for the majority of visitors — which defeats most of the point of adopting a “smaller file” format in the first place.
JPEG XL vs AVIF vs WebP: Where Things Stand
| Factor | JPEG XL | AVIF | WebP |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chrome support | Removed (was experimental, dropped in Chrome 110, 2023) | Full support (85+) | Full support |
| Firefox support | Behind a flag, disabled by default | Full support (93+) | Full support |
| Safari support | Yes (Safari 17+, 2023) | Yes (Safari 16+) | Yes (Safari 14+) |
| Lossless JPEG recompression | Yes — unique to JPEG XL | No | No |
| HDR / high bit depth | Yes, up to 32-bit float | Yes, up to 12-bit | No, 8-bit only |
| Practical readiness for general web use today | Not ready — Chrome gap is disqualifying for most sites | Ready for performance-focused teams willing to manage tooling gaps | The safe, mature default |
See our AVIF explainer for the fuller picture on where that format stands specifically.
Where JPEG XL Is Actually Relevant Today
Despite the browser setback, JPEG XL isn’t irrelevant — it’s just relevant in a narrower lane than originally hoped:
- Professional photography and archival storage. The lossless JPEG recompression feature is genuinely useful for anyone sitting on a large existing JPEG archive who wants real storage savings without any risk of additional quality loss — a photo agency, a personal archive, a museum digitization project
- Camera and imaging hardware experimentation. Some camera manufacturers have shown interest in JPEG XL as a high-quality capture or delivery format, given its HDR and wide color gamut support
- Software that reads/writes it outside the browser. Some image editors and RAW-processing tools have added JPEG XL support for file interchange and archival export, separate from any question of web delivery
- Safari-specific or controlled-environment contexts. If you fully control the software stack (an internal tool, a Safari-only distribution channel) the Chrome gap doesn’t apply
What it is not relevant for right now is general website image delivery — the exact use case WebP and increasingly AVIF are used for.
The Honest Verdict: Should You Care About JPEG XL Yet?
Not for web delivery, no — not until (if) Chrome reverses its position or ships JPEG XL again, which it hasn’t signaled any plans to do as of this writing. Treating JPEG XL as your next-gen web image format today just means most of your visitors get a fallback format anyway, which erases most of the benefit of adopting it in the first place.
Where JPEG XL does deserve attention today is narrower and more specialized: professional archival storage (specifically for the lossless JPEG recompression feature), and photography/imaging workflows where HDR and wide color gamut genuinely matter and you’re not constrained by browser support. If that’s not your situation, WebP remains the practical default, and AVIF is the format worth watching if you want to go further — JPEG XL is the one to revisit later, not now.
AllMediaTools Image Converter doesn’t currently support JPEG XL as an input or output format — worth saying plainly, since it’s not a mainstream requirement of any image tool right now, including this one. For everyday format decisions today, see our WebP vs JPEG vs PNG comparison, and if your interest in JPEG XL is really about professional photography workflows more broadly, see TIFF vs JPEG for professional photography for the format that’s actually in standard use in that space today.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is JPEG XL, in one sentence?
A next-generation image format designed by the JPEG standards committee to beat JPEG, PNG, and WebP on compression while adding HDR support, progressive decoding, and a unique ability to losslessly shrink existing JPEG files by about 20%.
Why did Chrome remove JPEG XL support?
Google cited insufficient ecosystem-wide interest, limited incremental advantage over AVIF (which Chrome already supported), and the ongoing engineering cost of maintaining experimental code — removed in Chrome 110, February 2023, after shipping behind a flag since 2021.
Does any browser support JPEG XL today?
Safari does, since Safari 17 (2023, tied to macOS Sonoma). Chrome does not (removed in 2023) and Firefox keeps it behind a disabled-by-default flag. Without Chrome support, it’s not practical as a general web image delivery format.
Is JPEG XL better than AVIF?
On some technical dimensions, yes — better HDR support, higher bit depth, and the unique lossless JPEG recompression feature. But AVIF has actual browser support across Chrome, Firefox, and Safari, which makes AVIF the more usable choice today for real-world web delivery despite JPEG XL’s technical advantages on paper.
What is JPEG XL’s lossless JPEG recompression feature?
A mode where JPEG XL can repackage an existing JPEG file into a smaller JPEG XL file (roughly 20% smaller) and later convert it back into a byte-identical original JPEG. This is unique to JPEG XL — WebP and AVIF both require a full, separately lossy re-encode of a JPEG rather than a truly lossless round trip.
Should I start using JPEG XL for my website now?
No, not for general web delivery — the lack of Chrome support makes it impractical as a primary format today. It’s worth using specifically for professional archival storage (via its lossless JPEG recompression) or specialized photography workflows, not as a JPEG/WebP replacement for a typical website.